Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Solicitudes de restauración

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 89% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

Nesta páxina, os usuarios poden solicitar o borrado da páxina ou arquivo (dende aquí, "o aquivo") a restauración. Os usuarios poden comentar as solicitudes deixando marcas como manter borrado ou restaurar xunto coa súa motivación.

Ista páxina non é parte da Wikipedia. Esta páxina é sobre o contido da Wikimedia Commons, un repositorio de arquivos media usados por Wikipedia e outros proxectos Wikimedia. Wikimedia Commons non hospeda artigos enciclopédicos. Para solicitar a restauración dun artigo ou outro contido que fora borrado dende a edición inglesa da Wikipedia, vexa deletion review páxina do proxecto.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
150 copyvios • 153 duplicates • 7 adverts • 12 selfies • 13 others
v • d • e

Descubrindo porque foi borrado un arquivo

Primeiro, comproba en deletion log e atopa porque o arquivo foi borrado. Vexa tamén What links here asvcaracterísticas a ver se hai algunha discusión ligada ao arquivo borrado. Se subiches o arquivo, vexa se hai algunha mensaxe en your user talk page explicando o borrado. Segundo, fai o favor de ler en deletion policy, na project scope policy, e a licensing policy outra vez para atopar por que o arquivo non debe manterse en Commons.

Se a razón dada non está clara podes disputala, podes contactar co administrador borrador e preguntarlle e explicar ou darlle novas evidencias outra vez das razóns de borrado. Podes contactar con algún outro administrador activo (quizais one that speaks your native language) -a maioría está ledo de axudar, e se é un erro feito, rectificar a situación.

Apelando o borrado

Os borrados que son correctos baséanse na seguinte deletion, project scope e licensing as políticas non serán desfeitas. As propostas de troco de políticas poden ser feitas nas páxinas de discusión.

Se cres que a cuestión do arquivo non é unha violación de copyright nin vai fora do alcance do proxecto:

  • Podes querer falar co administrador quen borrou o arquivo. Podes preguntar ao administrador para unha explicación máis polo miudo ou que amose a evidencia que xustifique o borrado.
  • Se non queres contactar con ninguén directamente, ou se un administrador individual rexeita o desborrado, ou se queres unha oportunidade para que máis xente participe na discusión, podes pedir o desborrado nesta páxina.
  • Se o arquivo foi borrado por non ter evidencia de permission do propietario do copyright, fai ofavor de seguir procedure for submitting permission evidence. Se xa fixeches todo isto, non hai necesidade de pedir o desborrado aquí. Se o permiso foi enviado, o arquivo será restaurado cando o permiso sexa procesado. Fai o favor de ser paciente, como xa isto pode tardar varias semanas dependendo do traballo actual e da dispoñibilidade de voluntarios.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Desborrado temporal

Os arquivos poden ser "temporalmente" desborrados xa sexa para asistencia nunha discusión de restauración do arquivo ou permitir transferir ao proxecto que permita fair use. Usa a plantilla {{Request temporary undeletion}} nas peticións relevantes de restauración, e proporciona unha explicación.

  1. se o borrado temporal é para asistir nunha discusión, explica porque podería ser útil para a discusión restaurar o arquivo temporalmente, ou
  2. Se a restauración é temporal para permitir transferir o uso xusto no proxecto, indica cal é proxecto ao que tentas transferir o arquivo e liga ao uso xusto do proxecto.

Para axudar nunha discusión

Os arquivos poden temporalmente restaurarse para axudar nunha discusión. Se isto dificulta aos usuarios decidir se o requerimento de restauración pode garantir a concesión sen ter acceso ao arquivo. Onde a descrición do arquivo ou cita dende a descrición da páxina sexa suficiente, un admin pode proporcionar isto na vez de conceder a restauración temporal. As solicitudes poden ser rexeitas se cre que a utilidade para a discusión está sobrepasada por outros factores (tales como restaurar, incluso temporalmente, arquivos onde hai preocupacións sustanciais en relación a fotografías de persoas identificables). Arquivos temporalmente restaurados para axudar na discusión poden ser borrados outra vez despois de 30 días, ou cando a solicitude de restauración estea pechada (o que sexa antes)

Para permitir a transferencia xusta do contido a outro proxecto

A diferencia da Wikipedia inglesa e outros poucos proxectos Wikimedia, Commons non acepta contidos non libres con referencia a provisións fair use. Se o arquivo borrado chega aos requerimentos de uso de outro proxecto Wikimedia, os usuarios poden requerir temporalmente a restauración para ordenar a transferencia do arquivo aquí. Istas peticións poden usualmente ser manexadas rápidamente (sen discusión). Os arquivos temporalmente restaurados para propósitos de transferencia poden ser borrados outra vez despois de dous días. Cando o requerimento de restauración temporal, por favor cumpra o estado o proxecto no intento de transferir o arquivo e a ligazón ao proxecto para o uso xusto .

Proxectos que aceptan o uso xusto
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Engadindo unha petición

Primeiro, asegura que tentou find out why the file was deleted. Logo, fai o favor de ler ás seguintes instruccións para o que escribe a petición antes de proceder a engadila:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • No campo Subject:, enter an appropriate subject. Se ti pides un desborrado dun só arquivo, pon na cabeceiraI [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] é aconsellable. (Lembra poñer os dous puntos iniciais na ligazón.)
  • Identifica o/os ficheiro/s para os que tes solicitado a restauración e da unha ligazón ás imaxes (olla enriba). Se ti non sabes exactamente os nomes, da a información que poidas. As solicitudes que dan información erradas sobre "que" vai ser restaurado poden ser arquivadas sen máis aviso.
  • Indica a/as razón(s) para solicitar a restauración.
  • Asina a petición emprega catro caracteres de guión (~~~~). Se tes conta en Commons, loguéate primeiro. Se ti fuches quen subiu o arquivo en cuestión, pode axudar aos admins a identificalo.

Engade a petición ao final da páxina. Click here abre a páxina onde ti poidas engadir a petición. De maneira alternativa, podes pinchar na próxima ligazón "edit" da seguinte data actual. Mira os requerimentos da actualización.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Arquivos

Debates de restauración pechados archived diariamente.

Peticións actuais

Slovenian municipal coats of arms

I request review and (partial) undeletion of the files deleted as result of this request without a proper discussion. Although the request was actually mentioned by a third user in one of the unofficial communication channels of the Slovenian Wikipedia community, the requester or involved Commons administrators could have notified the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion. Since these files are actively used on the project, such a notification could have helped ensure that relevant comments were made already during the deletion discussion.

Generally, coats of arms are exempt from copyright law in Slovenia, see Template:PD-Slovenia-exempt. One might argue that some images were "independent creations" (as per the earlier discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of coats of arms of Slovenian municipalities). However, (1) it is highly debatable whether such works can be considered original if they only follow the textual description; and (2) the requester did not verify the actual source of the images. The link he cited is dead, and deleting files originating from dead links could have far-reaching consequences for the project. One of Commons’ goals is to preserve free media, and losing it due to link rot seems counterproductive. In the case of dead links, the assumption should not automatically be that the files are problematic. Fortunately, there are initiatives such as the Internet Archive that help us verify sources.

While some images indeed have come from third-party websites (which are now also dead, for example for Žirovnica), in several cases the files are direct reproductions of official heraldic acts. For example, the deleted coat of arms of Žužemberk (cached copy of the file information page) cites http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc20.html#si-zv as the source. This in turn cites Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Žužemberk, št. 8/00, which is an official municipal document. See the archived source. This is an official document, which means that in addition to the copyright exemption, it is also considered informacija javnega značaja (information of public character). Under Slovenian law, such materials must be publicly available and freely reusable, since official acts cannot be restricted by copyright in a way that prevents public access.

Therefore, even if a particular depiction were argued to be an “independent creation,” its publication within an official act places it firmly in the public domain as information of public character.


The files that should be reviewed are:
* File:Coat of arm of Hrastnik.png

I propose to:

  • Undelete the deleted files to allow the community to review them carefully on a case-by-case basis, using archived sources (e.g. via Internet Archive)
  • Subsequent edits by CommonsDelinker on Slovenian Wikipedia should also be reversed where the files are restored (see sl:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker)

Best regards, --Miha (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smihael: Maybe, it would be better to upload images that are clearly covered by the exemption and request undeletion only if the upload is prevented due to being binary identical with the deleted ones? Ankry (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So due to an overly narrow interpretation of copyright and lack of notice to the affected community, valuable files were lost and now others must dig through archives or search for alternatives to replace them. This is counterproductive — these files should be restored in good faith, and the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester and judged on an individual basis. In general, coats of arms are exempt from copyright protection in Slovenia, and the claim that these are copyrightable individual interpretations is doubtful at best, if not outright flawed... What definitely was flawed, is the deletion process itself, as it wrongly assumed that all files from a certain dead link were problematic. Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down: are we just going to delete thousands of imported images simply because their licenses are no longer easily verifiable? -- Miha (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose I was the deleting Admin. First, we cannot manufacture discussion. The DR was open for three and a half months. All of the uploaders were notified and no   Keep appeared there. We get about 10,000 new files every day and around 1,500 of them must be deleted. Most of this work is done by 20 Admins. We simply do not have the human resources to even think about "notifi[ng] the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion".

As for "Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down", this is why we have License Review -- so that there is a record of the license status of files that might otherwise be a problem. As far as I know, none of the uploaders requested license review for any of the files.

Also, please note that "the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester" is backward. Commons clear policy is that those who would keep a file must prove that it is either PD or freely licensed.

Finally, I examined a random dozen of the files before the deletion and found none that qualified for use on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The more pressing question is whether all coats of arms published on official pages of Slovenian municipalities are public domain or only those that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances. --TadejM (t/p) 10:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Those are in fact different legal questions, and I think we should not be conflating them.
  • First (copyright): coats of arms, when adopted as official municipal symbols, generally do not qualify for ordinary copyright protection in Slovenia — they are treated as official symbols or public emblems rather than ordinary works. The question of derivative versions is separate: such variants usually do not cross the threshold of originality, as they only follow the wording describing the coat of arms. If there are substantial differences, we should anyway avoid them to prevent confusion.
  • Second (access / source of the file): The doctrine of informacija javnega značaja (the right of access to public information) requires that documents held by public authorities — including municipal graphical identity or coat of arms files — be made accessible and reusable, unless a statutory exception applies. This principle is recognized in the Constitution (see https://e-kurs.si/komentar/kaj-je-informacija-javnega-znacaja/) and is implemented in the Access to Public Information Act (ZDIJZ). ZDIJZ applies to all state bodies, local government bodies, and related public law entities, requiring them to provide access and re-use of public information (including works created by them or acquired from others) unless specifically exempt (for example: national security, personal data protection, internal deliberations, trade secrets) regardless of the medium or format in which the information is stored. Thus, whether the coat of arms was published in Uradni list or only on a municipal website is irrelevant under access law — what matters is that the public authority holds the file and that it is not subject to a statutory exemption.
  • There remains the separate question of how the coat of arms may be used to prevent misuse. That is regulated by municipal acts (usage ordinances, design rules, prohibitions), and is separate from copyright concerns. On Wikimedia Commons, you will often see notices such as despite the copyright status, additional restrictions may apply (e.g. photos of cultural heritage, local usage rules). So potential presence of usage restrictions does not automatically invalidate a file’s eligibility on Commons as long as the file itself is not under copyright protection.
To sum up: the version of the coat of arms found in municipal materials can generally be used without issue, because it has already been published by the public authority, is publicly available, and is effectively exempt from copyright under Slovenian law. Therefore, the requester should check which of the files were sourced from official documents and at least restore those!
In my view, the first part of rationale also covers coat of arms images sourced from elsewhere: even if they are derivatives (and not mere copies of versions found in municipial documents), they typically do not cross the threshold of originality and so do not attract separate copyright. If you accept this logic, then all the files in this discussion should be restored. That said, it is of course a better policy to gradually replace them with versions directly sourced from official documents, and even better if redrawn in vector format (so quality and fidelity are improved). But that is no justification to leave the files deleted in the meantime. -- Miha (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow doubt that all municipal coats of arms are copyright exempt in Slovenia. For example, this page cites the Municipality of Grosuplje as the copyright holder. --TadejM (t/p) 10:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there are solid sources to claim that. Article 9 of the ZASP (Copyright and Related Rights Act) lists official legislative, administrative and judicial texts among non-protected creations (i.e. not covered by ordinary copyright). A study, commissioned by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency and co-authored by the Institute for Comparative Law at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, explains that although ZASP uses the term official texts, in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes to, official texts—explicitly including drawings of the state coat of arms, municipal coats of arms, flags, traffic-sign drawings, urban plans, and the anthem (see section 2.1.2 Nejasnost pojma uradna besedila, pp. 27–28).
While it's true that some municipalities (as in your example) present themselves as copyright holders, this mostly reflects a widespread misunderstanding of basic copyright principles. Many people — including public officials — are generally un(der)educated about copyright issues and often use “copyright” loosely when they actually mean that it is legally protected by special rules. Again, such claims do not override the copyright status of the works. -- Miha (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes". This would mean that only those municipal coats of arms "that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances" qualify as copyright exempt. --TadejM (t/p) 13:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so we at least agree that the municipal coats of arms, which are sourced from official sources are not protected by copyright.
I checked https://web.archive.org/web/20091208063825/http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc.html and this already concerns many deleted coat of arms. On the first page alone, I found that most of the files were indeed sourced from official acts, including:
  • Ajdovscina
  • Beltinci
  • Benedikt
  • Bistrica ob Sotli
  • Bled
  • Bloke
  • Bohinj
@TadejM Please, go through the remaining files and undelete those coming from official acts.
As for the other files, I still believe they are also unproblematic. In most cases, they likely come from official acts through intermediaries, but this is not the key issue. What matters is the official nature of the symbol, not its intermediate source. To clarify, any faithful depiction (which was as far as I can remember the case for all deleted files) of a coat of arms does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Since these symbols are not original designs, they do not qualify for copyright. -- Miha (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, other coat of arms can be easily sourced from official sources. Redirects can be made to resolve any deadlinks caused by this deletion. --Miha (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images could be undeleted if directly taken from an official document (ordinance, see e.g. Vrhnika) but not if the official document contains only a blazon. It will take time to check all of them. Regarding the threshold, these images are quite original and at least some have been designed by a professional company (Heraldika d.o.o); I'm not certain why they would fall below a TOO. --TadejM (t/p) 17:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really see a problem here. If you look again at the study I cited above, it is clear that once a coat of arms is part of an official document (including annexes to ordinances), it falls under the category of official texts within the meaning of Article 9 ZASP. That means two things: (1) they are not subject to ordinary copyright, and (2) this applies regardless of whether the drawing was created in-house or commissioned from a third party. The study itself explicitly references Copyright and Related Rights Act with a commentary by Trampuž, Oman and Zupančič. I am trying to obtain a copy of that commentary, which should clear up any remaining doubt on this point.
As for your Vrhnika example. The act you are citing above is no longer in force. The updated Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Vrhnika (13.2.02) removes any ambiguity: Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati (the coat of arms and flag cannot be copyright-protected) and that Izvirnike grba in zastave občine Vrhnika v vseh oblikah hrani Občinska uprava občine Vrhnika (the originals in all forms are kept by the municipal administration). In legal terms, that is equivalent to annex publication. Under ZDIJZ, the official source file can be requested directly from the authority and freely reused.
And even if the earlier act with the poor-quality scan were still valid, that still would not magically make faithful reproductions reach TOO. If the emblem is prescribed and published in an official act (as it is), then any accurate reproduction is non-copyright under ZASP and cannot be treated otherwise. Period. -- Miha (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What the actual ordinance really says about Vrhnika is that "Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati [po drugih osebah] brez dovoljenja občine" (the coat of arms and flag must not be copyright-protected [by other parties] without a permission of the municipality). In any case, as the image of the coat of arms was previously published in the Official Gazette, it is copyright-exempt. A similar clause is contained in the ordinance issued by the Municipality of Preddvor: "avtorske pravice si pridrži občina" (Copyright is retained by the municipality).[1] --TadejM (t/p) 09:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going through the list of deleted images and will undelete those that are exact images copied from official publications. For example, File:Trbovlje.png is an exact copy from https://www.e-obcina.si/vsebina/uradni-vestnik-zasavja-st-112015. --TadejM (t/p) 10:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now undeleted some as per the above. --TadejM (t/p) 17:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Miha (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've got access to the aforementioned commentary on copyright act. The exceprt (pp. 54-55) below discusses how the term "official text" should be interpreted and extended to include other categories.
Pojem besedila - Po vzoru Bernske konvencije zakon govori o »besedilih«, čeprav se v okviru uradnih pristojnosti in oblastvenih upravičenj pogosto objavljajo tudi druge kategorije avtorskih del, in sicer kot del uradnega besedila, kot njegova priloga ali pa samostojno (npr. dela urbanizma, kanografije, zbirke, baze podatkov). Tudi za take kategorije lahko velja, da so uradnega značaja in da je njihovo poslanstvo v čim večjem razširjanju. Z vidika njihovega namena se torej ne razlikujejo od zakonov, odločb ali drugih uradnih besedil. Temu ustrezno pojma »besedila« iz člena 9/1 tč. 2 ZASP ni mogoče tolmačiti samo dobesedno, temveč s primerno razširitvijo na druge kategorije del. Pogoj je, da gre za uradne kategorije (z vsemi značilnostmi tega pojma) ter da se taka interpretacija opravi glede na vse okoliščine primera in previdno. V dvomu bo merodajen predvsem uradni značaj dela: uravnavanja družbenih razmerij s to kategorijo avtorskega dela se ne da doseči le z uradno objavo, temveč tudi z nadaljnjim (za vsakogar) neoviranim in poljubnim reproduciranjem (Ulmer, § 30, II, 2; Schricker/Karzettberger, § 5, tč. 42).
I marked parts relavant for our discussion. Later on they discuss several examples and as already established by the aformentioned study, this also includes coat of arms. You can see that the intention of the exemption is to ensure that, among others official symbols, can be freely used and reproduced in order to fulfill their function. This supports my claim that it is the official nature of the coat of arms that matters, not where it is pusblished (in Uradni list or independently). Therefore the coat of arms from municipial sites should be fine. -- Miha (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined the first dozen of these including two that have been restored. None of them are sourced from a municipality and none of them has a correct license. Note that while CoA created by a government may not have a copyright as discussed in great detail above, those created by persons other than the government have copyrights both in Slovenia and in the USA. I see no reason why my closure of the DR was incorrect. Those files that have been restored should be deleted and this should be closed as Not Done. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín.jpg

The reason for deletion was: I don't think the original photo is in the public domain in the United States (which is required on Commons) even if it is in the public domain in Argentina. I doubt the photo even belongs to that Argentinian newspaper, so I doubt it is in the public domain in Argentina either

Also:

The photo should be PD in USA. It was published in some American newspapers during that time without author and copyright notice. For example, The Boston Globe [2] on 14 February 1984, The Evening News [3] on 13 February 1984, Standard-Freeholder on 24 December 1984 [4].

Ping @Turkmenistan and @Ur Nan123 for discussion. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo from Associated Press who publish this photo at their web site with the following credit: "Soviet Politburo member Konstantin Chernenko is seen, 1983. (AP Photo)". The location is said to be Moscow, Russia. (ap.org). Thuresson (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AP images published between 1964 and 1977 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain. By at least 1981 AP began including copyright notices on some photos.' But this one doesn't have.
I guess it should be {{PD-US-1978-89}} Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson ? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Oppose It is not possible to say for sure that this photo is public domain in the country of origin. It is probably not by an Associated Press photographer since the photographer is said to be anonymous. Thuresson (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson country of origin - you mean USSR / Russia? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be Boris Yurchenko who has worked for AP. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boris Yurchenko (Q23901745) died in 2010 so his works are not public domain in Russia. Thuresson (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But if they were produced for AP and not first published in Russia, that's irrelevant. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need to know if it was published in Soviet Union (we know it was in USA). Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilkes Barre Downtown.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I was wrong to tag it with the {{Duplicate}} tag. It appears the supposed duplicate file, File:Wilkes Barre Panorama.jpg, contains a different file that was overwritten in breach with COM:OVERWRITE. I'm planning to revert the file to the original, different version should "Wilkes Barre Downtown.jpg" be undeleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of us is confused -- none of the files mentioned above have a deletion tag or have ever been deleted. The subject file is widely used. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the file was originally uploaded as File:Wilkes Barre Downtown.jpg and then overwritten with a different file, and then deleted as a dupe, before a redirect was created. I think he wants to try undeleting it and then reverting to the original version. Curiously, File:Wilkes Barre Panorama.jpg was also uploaded as one file and then overwritten. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JWilz12345, given the confused file status here, I'm not sure what you want done. Since the subject file is not deleted, if there is nothing else you need here, please close this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nard, you're probably right, but JWilz12345 is active on a daily basis, so it's better to actually get them to tell us what to do lest we guess wrong. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward@Nard the Bard correct Nard, I have some hunch that "Wilkes-Barre Panorama" image was originally different, and the redirect "Wilkes-Barre Downtown" was originally the current version of "Panorama" image (it's visible in the file history of "Panorama"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is uncontested, why is it still open? -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 15:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anna Eynard-Lullin Bern.jpg

This file was initially flagged at Commons_talk:AI-generated_media#Possible_AI-generated_images with User:MHM55 being concerned that all of User:Beeckfrau's images (mostly outdoor photos of statues) were AI generated. It was then put up for DR, and deleted.

MHM55's concerns about the file are that the timestamp is wrong, that the bust is known to be on display in Geneva yet the filename contains the word "Bern", and that the size of the books is "not realistic".

The DR discussed whether the image might be AI generated: two users said it was "clearly AI-generated" and "clearly a fake image", only singling out "details in the lower part of the statue which do not exist" (although the nature of these details wasn't stated). Other users, including one who said they'd "seen a lot of AI-generated images" (and myself, I've also seen and deleted a lot of this on Commons), didn't think it looked like AI at all. I also don't think that any of Beeckfrau's other images look AI-generated, and MHM55 didn't give any further reasons for thinking so.

Unless there is some giveaway clue that the Anna Eynard-Lullin image was generated by AI, I think the concerns can be explained by Omphalographer's theory that the bust could be a replica. This would resolve the questions of why it was in Bern instead of Geneva and was of an unexpected size. But it could also just be that the filename is misleading (the uploader forgot which library they took it in, or meant something else by the word "Bern") and the reference books on this Geneva Library shelf are unexpectedly larger or smaller than one might think.

Since there don't seem to be any other freely-licenced images of this bust or this person on the internet, Commons would benefit from hosting one if the image is genuine. I don't think we had enough discussion to be able to decide that it was definitely a fake. Belbury (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose

  1. A very similar, but not identical, bust appears here with ARR.
  2. All of a random sample of similar images from this uploader show EXIF with Camera=Oppo. This has no useful EXIF.
  3. Contrary to "Since there don't seem to be any other freely-licenced images ... of this person on the internet", we have Category:Anna Eynard-Lullin with 21 files including paintings, photographs, and sculpture. We do not have an image of this bust.

I therefore think it very likely that this is an AI image based on the bust at (1). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on other images of Eynard-Lullin! That makes this less important.
The similar bust was mentioned in the DR and does seem to be the only other reference image to compare it to online. From memory the bust is identical (including the crack across it), the texture of her clothing looks a little different (which may be the lighting; its contours appeared identical) and the pedestal had been swapped out for a different one. From my understanding of AI image editing, if you asked a current model to redraw the same bust but on a bookshelf with different lighting and a different pedestal, other alterations would creep in - and you would have to manually apply other filters to the output, to give the appearance of a pixelised low-light camera image. Belbury (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After further examination of both images under high magnification, I am almost certain that the two photographs discussed above are the same bust. There is a small defect just above where the fold in the cloth that goes down from left to right hits the fold that surrounds the bust. That appears in both images. The subject image shows significant pixelization typical of AI work and, of course, the subject image is missing most of its base. Since the uploader has a history of uploading AI work, I think we must close this as not done and I will do so unless someone can provide a good reason not to do that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the user actually has any history of uploading AI content. The only discussion I'm aware of is the discussion at the AI media talk page where User:MHM55 said they were putting all of User:Beeckfrau's statue images into Category:Unconfirmed likely AI-generated images to check, apparently largely because of their "impossible" timestamps. I checked the images and removed them from the category as they didn't appear to be AI generated, and MHM55 said OK. I am not a specialist in this regard. Belbury (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alternative flag of Guadalajara 2.svg and File:Alternative flag of Guadalajara 3.svg

Not out of scope since both images exist at https://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/images/m/mx-jc!e1.gif and https://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/images/m/mx-jc!b2.gif, firstly, and they can be used in an article to illustrate municipal symbols of Guadalajara, a big Mexican city. Both images are supported by photographic evidence, and the illustrations themselves conform to real photographs. Flagvisioner (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose Per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-11#File:Alternative flag of Guadalajara 2.svg and File:Alternative flag of Guadalajara 3.svg. Thuresson (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"FOTW is 'generally considered unrealible'" is not a statement which applies here. I'm sourcing the drawings based on photographs on the site, not information. A photograph of a more current flag can't be faked like a historical flag. Since the photos are clearly more modern and clearly visible in more public spaces in these photos, it is clear they are at least somewhat used in reality. They are unofficial so they should not replace a header image, but serve well to illustrate the evolution of the flag in physically used forms. Flagvisioner (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Bekasi.svg

This file was deleted following the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Bekasi.svg. However, around the same period there were several related CfD discussions initiated by the same nominator, using the same rationale, and concerning the same type of content. In those cases the subjects were the flags of Indonesian provinces, cities, and regencies. The outcomes of those discussions were clear keeps, please look up the following CfDs for the details:

The reasoning applied in those discussions is directly relevant here. The file for Flag of Bekasi Regency appears to have slipped through without wider community attention, as no editors participated in that DR, which then resulted in an unchallenged deletion.

Several subsequent DR discussions on similar files have also been closed as keep, following the precedent set in the cases above, such as:

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Banyumas.png
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Kebumen.png
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Nabire.png
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Banggai.png
  5. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Sidoarjo.png
  6. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Jayawijaya.png
  7. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Bulungan.png
  8. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Merauke.png
  9. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Landak.png
  10. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Manokwari.png
  11. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Mamuju.png
  12. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Kulon Progo.png
  13. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Sleman.png

Given the consistent consensus to keep comparable files, and the lack of community input in the Flag of Bekasi Regency discussion, the same reasoning should apply here. I request that the file be restored in line with the established precedent. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg

The Swiss Supreme Court ruled that this photo was below TOO. Commons' policy has evolved since this file was deleted, COM:TOO states that, in an example of a UK work: "Note that Commons policy on the country of origin requires this logo to be judged by UK standards". This is consistent with how we treat other similar questions, like FoP, where the copyright law of the home country of the photo only is followed. (See also Commons:Unprotected works where it is clear only the home country's law is contemplated). -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pages you link to are not official policy. Commons:Licensing, which is official policy states "When uploading material from a country outside the U.S., the copyright laws of that country and the U.S. normally apply." Thuresson (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thuresson, your comment troubles me. As Nard says, we ignore US law when looking at FoP. If we applied US law to images that are here because they fall under FoP in their home country, we would have to delete all recent art. Perhaps COM:L needs updating as I think it is a mistake to apply only the home country law to FoP but both that and USA law to all other issues. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That we don't apply US law to FOP artworks is the one big inconsistency in how we handle things. I don't see a similar inconsistency when it comes to TOO. --Rosenzweig τ 10:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kilden aktivitetsenter i Arendal.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Depiction of Permanent Statues and Public Art Under the Norwegian Copyright Act (Åndsverkloven) § 23 (1), works of art that are permanently placed in or at a public space may be freely depicted. This means that photographing and publishing such images is permitted without the rights holder's permission. Source: Åndsverkloven (Copyright Act) § 23 (1). Birdesigns (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose That is a misreading of the law

"Under the Act No. 40 of June 15, 2018,
  • A work can be depicted when it is permanently placed on or near a public space or road or similar publicly accessible place. However, this does not apply when the work is clearly the main subject, and the reproduction is used commercially. Buildings can be depicted freely.[2018 §31]"

This is an image of the sculpture and commercial use must be allowed. The only usable FoP in Norway is for buildings..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have probably misunderstood the argument about commercial use, then. Norwegian law permits this (magazines/editorial, art prints) for these kinds of images, but specifically does not allow them in advertising – which I guess Commons licences can't prohibit? Birdesigns (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter here, but your statement above is incorrect. Commercial use of photographs of copyrighted works, which is not permitted in Norway with the exception of buildings, would include use in magazines and art prints. If you see such things, either they are licensed or the publisher is assuming that the copyright owner won't sue. That assumption is specifically prohibited here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:בנימין מדליון.png

שלום רב. אני מבקש לשחזר את התמונה בערך בינימין מדליון. זו תמונה שאני צימתי והצהרתי עליה כשהליתי אותה לויקישיתוף --Meirchot (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

שלום רב.
אני מבקש לשחזר את התמונה בערך בינימין מדליון.
זו תמונה שאני צילמתי והצהרתי עליה כשהעליתי אותה לויקישיתוף
--Meirchot (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted as no permission and looks like a screenshot. Where did it come from? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:(NOT_IRL_IMAGE)_ZiU-9_EMU_from_"veds_trolleybuses_place".png

  Not done: Per TSC. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File: Geynes at the Oscars 2025.jpg

Hi there, I can confirm that I'm the owner of that photo that was taken with Eric Geynes' agreement so I hold the copyright. Thank you, Richard Squires --CinephileChronicle (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC) 2nd December 2025[reply]

  Oppose On the upload, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Here you say only that you are "the owner of that photo". Also note that the agreement of the subject is irrelevant to a discussion of the copyright. Because the image appears elsewhere on the Web without a free license, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Example.jpgI don't understand why the Alko Azuix page was deleted.

I confess I don't understand why the Alko Azuix page was deleted. I wanted to create an artist page and spent several hours on it, and I didn't understand what the problem was. It's a shame they deleted the entire page instead of telling me which element was incorrect so I could make changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alko Azuix (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I own the rights to the photo since it's of me, and I took the photo and uploaded it to Wikimedia myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alko Azuix (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose The page User:Alko Azuix has never existed on Commons, so some of what is said above does not make sense. The only deleted work of this editor on Commons is the image File:File:Alko Azuix.png which was deleted as a personal photo from a non-contributor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done: by Jim. No file name provided anyway. --Yann (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:GF logo horz rgb R 2025.svg

  Done: @JJPMaster: please update permission and add a license. --Abzeronow (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Логотип Ассоциации Корё-сарам в Республике Корея.jpg

Здравствуйт! Логотип Ассоциации Корё-сарам в Республике Корея. Это мой файл, я его взял не с интернета, а мы с президентом Ассоциации разработали его самм в 2018г. Меня зовут Ким Эльмар, я в течении 9 лет жил в Корее. И возглавляю региональное представительство АКРК.Фото которое указанно на страничке нашей ассоциации в facebook, это я отправлял. Извините, но что за бред получается. Свою же фотку не могу разместить пол своей же статьёй о ассоциации. Спасибо . 3.12.2025 г. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Elmar (talk • contribs) 03:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose Policy requires that logos must have a free license from their copyright holder via VRT. Note also that if you write an article on WP about the association, you must disclose your conflict of interest and the article may be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

angeloorefice_rdl2024_3--15

I am the creator and sole copyright holder of this file. I confirm that I am the author of the work and that I own all associated rights. I release this file under a free and open license and authorize its use on Wikimedia projects in accordance with the terms of that license.

--Angelooreficefotografia (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose This editor's only deleted file is File:Valeria Parrella foto di Angelo Orefice.jpg. The file has appeared elsewhere on the Web prior to its upload here, so restoring it will require a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. See https://www.instagram.com/p/DAvW0RloOvl/?img_index=4 .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:UEFA Women's Championship trophy.jpg

Hi, what can I say?? My picture of the UEFA women's championship trophy has been deleted one month ago without further discussion. I took a picture of the trophy while it was on public display in Switzerland this summer. Other volunteers have already done the same with the Henri Delaunay Cup and no one bothered to delete their derivative works of a copyrighted trophy...? Do you assume that the female trophy is copyrighted while the male is public domain? Please explain and consider to undelete the file. If that's not possible, what other ways are there to illustrate the several Wikipedia articles of this European football competition? --Pakeha (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pakeha: The trophy is a copyrighted work of art, is it not? Thuresson (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson: I would say so but the thing is: Pictures of male football trophies are extremely valuable to illustrate Wikipedia articles as in this case, for all good reasons. When you're a volunteer and try exactly the same to illustrate female competitions with nice images they get deleted without hesitations. ---Pakeha (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you can propose that your favourite Wikipedia institute a fair use policy for photos. Or you can contact the artist to try to arrange a free license for photos of the trophy. Thuresson (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I can't see a fair use policy nor is there any arrangement with the artist when looking at all those male football trophies. So, unfortunately, my issue has still not been approached. --Pakeha (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fluffy White Cuddle Buddy.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per the username, and the fact thet File:Coracle Ride Amidst Nature 🌊🏞️.jpg is clearly the w:Hogenakkal Falls, we can assume this photo was taken in India. India has a high TOO so this should be kept. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of Whangamomona.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Was tagged by LTA 292 (see filter log). Please recheck to confirm that if this file is truly a non-free logo. Nvdtn19 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand logo, looks possibly above ToO to me. Abzeronow (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ginny Favede (2019).png

This file was deleted with the rationale that the source was "License Laundering." I believe this is an error. The image is a screenshot derived from the official YouTube channel of U.S. Senator (then Governor) Jim Justice. Source Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkOj_Vzk1pY. The channel "Senator Jim Justice" is the official channel for the politician. It contains official press coverage and updates. Coqui002 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/gl&oldid=972453159"